Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Adaptive Elastic-Net estimation for sparse diffusion processes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces an adaptive Elastic-Net estimator for ergodic diffusion processes sampled at high frequency, proving oracle properties and finite-sample bounds on estimation and one-step-ahead prediction error.

desk verdict First Elastic-Net for sparse diffusions, but the main oracle theorem is stated too broadly and the proof only covers the equal-information case. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16659 v1 pith:BXX7OQHC submitted 2024-12-21 math.ST stat.TH

Alessandro De Gregorio , Dario Frisardi , Francesco Iafrate , Stefano Iacus This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62M0562J0760J6062F12
keywords adaptiveelastic-netdiffusionprocessesoraclepropertiesnon-asymptoticboundspredictionerrorhigh-frequencysamplingvariableselectionregularizedestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

An adaptive Elastic-Net estimator is introduced for ergodic diffusion processes sampled at high frequency, built by replacing the quasi-likelihood with its least-squares quadratic approximation and adding adaptive $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ penalties. The paper claims this estimator inherits the oracle properties of adaptive Lasso: it is consistent, sets truly zero coefficients to zero with probability tending to one, and has asymptotically normal nonzero components with covariance $G\Gamma(\theta_0)^{-1}G$ under mixed convergence rates. For a block-diagonal variant the paper proves high-probability non-asymptotic $\ell_2$ error bounds and a finite-sample bound on one-step-ahead mean absolute prediction error. A sympathetic reader would care because the method promises sparse, interpretable estimation and forecasting for multivariate diffusions with correlated coordinates, where plain Lasso tends to drop one of a correlated pair.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the least-squares approximation of the quasi-likelihood contrast, wrapped in adaptive Elastic-Net penalties. Starting from an initial estimator $\tilde{\theta}_n$, the quadratic form $\langle \hat{G}_n,(\theta-\tilde{\theta}_n)^{\otimes 2}\rangle$ replaces the negative quasi-log-likelihood, making the objective convex; the adaptive weights $\kappa_{n,j}=\lambda_{1,n}/|\tilde{\alpha}_{n,j}|^{\delta_1}$ and $\pi_{n,h}=\gamma_{1,n}/|\tilde{\beta}_{n,h}|^{\delta_2}$ give heavier shrinkage to coordinates whose initial estimates are near zero, while the ridge terms $\lambda_{2,n}|\alpha|^2+\gamma_{2,n}|\beta|^2$ keep correlated coordinates from being arbitrarily dropped. The matrix $A_n=\mathrm{diag}((n\Delta_n)^{-1/2}I_p,n^{-1/2}I_q)$ encodes the two different convergence rates of drift and diffusion parameters, and it is the scaling that turns both the oracle normality result and the finite-sample bounds into statements with explicit rates.

What would settle it

In the paper's stochastic regression simulation with correlated regressors ($\rho=0.9$), record as $n$ grows the proportion of runs in which both true correlated coefficients are selected, and compare the empirical $\ell_2$ errors of the block-diagonal estimator with bound (17) on the same runs. Selection consistency predicts the proportion tends to 1 and the bound holds with the claimed probability; a plateau in selection frequency or frequent violation of the bound would show the theorems need their extra assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery the paper aims to establish is that the adaptive Elastic-Net estimator $\hat{\theta}_n$, defined as the minimizer of $F_n(\theta;\tilde{\theta}_n) = |\hat{G}_n^{1/2}(\theta-\tilde{\theta}_n)|^2 + \sum_j \kappa_{n,j}|\alpha_j| + \sum_h \pi_{n,h}|\beta_h| + \lambda_{2,n}|\alpha|^2 + \gamma_{2,n}|\beta|^2$, is a valid sparse estimator for the diffusion model (3). Theorem 1 shows that with a consistent initial estimator and appropriate penalty rates, $\hat{\theta}_n$ is consistent, selects the zero components with probability tending to one, and satisfies $\left(\sqrt{n\Delta_n}(\hat{\alpha}_n-\alpha_0)_\star,\sqrt{n}(\hat{\beta}_n-\beta_0)_\star\right)^\top \xrightarrow{d} N_{m_0}(0,G\Gamma(\theta_0)^{-1}G)$; when $G=\Gamma(\theta_0)$ the limiting covariance is the diagonal oracle matrix. Theorem 4 bounds the $\ell_2$ error of a block-diagonal version by terms involving the ridge parameters, the initial estimator error, and the adaptive weights, and Theorem 5 converts this into a high-probability bound of order $\sqrt{p}/\sqrt{n\Delta_n}$ and $\sqrt{q}/\sqrt{n}$ under the regular-contrast assumption A5(r). Theorem 6 gives a finite-sample bound on the mean absolute error of the one-step predictor $\hat{X}_{T+h}=X_T+h b(X_T,\hat{\alpha}_n)$, of order $\sqrt{h}+h\sqrt{p}/\sqrt{T_n}+O(T_n^{-1/2})$. Empirical results on simulated stochastic regression models and on well-being data support the claim that the method keeps correlated predictors together and improves prediction over Lasso.

Load-bearing premise

The non-asymptotic bounds rest on the 'regular contrast' assumption A5(r): the gradient of the quasi-likelihood is controlled by a square-integrable random variable and its Hessian is uniformly positive definite in a neighborhood of the initial estimator, a strong finite-sample identifiability condition for nonlinear multivariate diffusions that is assumed rather than verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The drift and diffusion coefficients of a sparse ergodic diffusion can be estimated at their natural mixed rates $\sqrt{n\Delta_n}$ and $\sqrt{n}$ while the zero coefficients are set to exactly zero with probability tending to one.
  • Strongly correlated predictors are selected as a group rather than one being arbitrarily dropped, because the ridge term keeps the $\ell_2$ objective strictly convex.
  • The block-diagonal variant is asymptotically equivalent to the full estimator and comes with explicit high-probability $\ell_2$ bounds, so practitioners get a finite-sample certificate in the regime $p=O((n\Delta_n)^{\nu_1})$, $q=O(n^{\nu_2})$.
  • One-step-ahead forecasts inherit a finite-sample mean-absolute-error bound of order $\sqrt{h}+h\sqrt{p}/\sqrt{n\Delta_n}$, separating the irreducible horizon error from the estimation error.
  • When the information matrix is consistently estimated, the asymptotic covariance collapses to the diagonal oracle matrix, matching classical adaptive Lasso efficiency.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension the authors do not develop is to use the same quadratic-contrast Elastic-Net construction for partially observed or noisy diffusion data, where the Hessian matrix is replaced by an estimating-function information matrix; the theorem structure suggests the oracle and non-asymptotic results should transfer if A5(r) holds for that contrast.
  • The bound of order $\sqrt{h}+h\sqrt{p}/\sqrt{T_n}+O(T_n^{-1/2})$ implies that for fixed observation horizon $T_n$, increasing sampling frequency alone does not shrink the drift estimation error, so the design guidance for experiments would be to extend the calendar time window rather than only sampling faster; this is a testable comparison across sampling schemes.
  • The importance-frequency analysis used on the well-being data could be read as a stability-selection diagnostic: ranking variables by how often and how strongly they enter across time windows could serve as a general model-exploration tool for non-stationary SDE data, although the paper does not frame it that way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies adaptive Elastic-Net estimation for ergodic diffusion processes observed at high frequency. The estimator minimizes a quadratic approximation of the quasi-likelihood plus adaptive weighted l1 and l2 penalties (eqs. (5)-(10)). The authors prove oracle properties (consistency, selection consistency, asymptotic normality) in Theorem 1, uniform Lr bounds in Theorem 2, finite-sample bounds for a block-diagonal version in Theorems 4-5, and prediction error bounds in Theorem 6. They illustrate the method with simulations and a Twitter well-being data application.

Significance. If the theoretical results were fully established, the paper would be a useful contribution: it extends the authors' earlier LASSO/Bridge framework for diffusions to Elastic-Net, offers ridge stabilization relevant for correlated covariates, and adds non-asymptotic estimation and prediction guarantees. The simulations and real-data analyses are clearly presented, and code is made available. However, the main asymptotic normality result as stated is not proved in its claimed generality, and a rate condition for the ridge penalty is missing; these issues affect the central inferential claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 1(iii)] The statement of asymptotic normality is not supported as written. The matrix G defined just before the theorem is explicitly m0×m, so the covariance expression GΓ(θ0)^{-1}G is m0×m rather than m0×m0; it should presumably be GΓ(θ0)^{-1}G^T. More importantly, the proof defines Jα := (Ip0, (Γαα⋆⋆)^{-1}Γαα⋆•) using Γ, not G, and then obtains diag((Γαα⋆⋆)^{-1}, (Γββ⋆⋆)^{-1}) by blockwise inversion. This proves only the special case G = Γ(θ0). Under P4 with a general positive definite block-diagonal G, the limiting covariance would be J_G Γ(θ0)^{-1} J_G^T with J_G built from G, which is not the stated expression. Since this theorem is the paper's main inferential result, the proof must be extended to the general case.
  2. [Section 3, Theorem 1(iii) assumptions] The proof of (iii) also requires the ridge rates λ2,n√(nΔn) → 0 and γ2,n√n → 0, but these are not among the stated assumptions P1, P2, P4, A3, A4. In the proof the term √(nΔn)λ2,n(Gαα⋆⋆)^{-1}α is asserted to be o_p(1); however A2 only gives O(1) and A3 does not control λ2,n. Without the vanishing ridge rate, a bias of order O_P(1) remains in the active-coordinate equation and asymptotic normality need not hold. The theorem statement and its assumptions need to be aligned.
  3. [Section 4, Theorem 5] The statement 'with probability at least 1 − CL/r^L' is not a complete high-probability bound because the displayed right-hand sides (17)-(18) contain the random variable ξn, whose distribution is only controlled through Eξn^2 ≤ J. On the event {|A_n^{-1}(θ̃_n−θ0)| ≤ r} used in the proof, ξn can still be arbitrarily large, so the claimed probability does not by itself bound the Euclidean error by a deterministic quantity. The authors should state the relevant event explicitly and add a tail condition on ξn, or derive a union bound with P(ξn > t) ≤ J/t^2, to make the finite-sample guarantee meaningful.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The sentence before Theorem 6 refers to 'the assumptions of Theorem 3', but there is no Theorem 3 in the paper; presumably Theorem 4 is intended.
  2. [Section 1] In the introduction the objective function is written as 'Ln(θ) + Ln(θ) + Rn(θ)'; the second Ln should be the l1 penalty Ln(θ).
  3. [Section 5] The phrase 'Euler-Maruyama Euler-Maruyama approximation' is duplicated.
  4. [Proof of Theorem 1(ii)] The normalization in the displayed KKT condition appears inconsistent: after multiplying the derivative by 1/√(nΔn), the terms inside the absolute value should carry reciprocal factors of √(nΔn) rather than the printed √(nΔn). Please correct this display.
  5. [Assumption P4] Condition P4 uses the same symbol G as P3 while defining a different, block-diagonal random limit; using a different symbol (e.g. G* or H) would avoid confusion with the m0×m matrix G defined after it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the estimator's oracle and non-asymptotic properties are derived from explicit regularity conditions and standard quasi-likelihood machinery, not from the predicted quantities themselves.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not defined in terms of their own conclusions. The adaptive Elastic-Net estimator is built from a least-squares approximation of the quasi-likelihood plus adaptive L1 and L2 penalties, and Theorem 1's oracle properties are derived from the stated mixed-rate assumptions P1-P2 on the initial estimator, the scaled information-matrix convergence P3-P4, and the penalty-rate assumptions A1-A4. The proof states it 'uses the same approach adopted in [8]' and invokes a blockwise inversion argument from [8], but this is a proof-technique citation rather than an import of the theorem's conclusion; the manuscript gives its own KKT and influence-function computations. The non-asymptotic bounds in Theorems 4-6 follow from convexity, eigenvalue bounds under A5-A6, the polynomial-type large deviation bounds of Yoshida cited as [33], and the Lipschitz-drift assumption A7; they are not obtained by fitting the quantities they bound. The adaptive weights depend on the consistent initial estimator, which is standard practice and does not make selection consistency definitional. The apparent dimension mismatch in the stated covariance of Theorem 1(iii) and the fact that the proof establishes the G = Gamma(theta_0) special case rather than the general stated covariance are correctness-risk concerns, not circular reductions. Since no step reduces by construction to its own input, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the listed assumptions: standard ergodic diffusion regularity, mixed-rate initial estimator properties, tuning-parameter rate conditions, finite-sample regular contrast and spectral bounds, and an exact block-diagonal information matrix for the non-asymptotic results. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Tuning sequences λ1,n, γ1,n, λ2,n, γ2,n, δ1, δ2 = rates constrained by A1-A4; no specific values
    The estimator's definition and oracle properties depend on these sequences. The paper gives rate conditions, not concrete choices; in simulations λ and γ are tuned by AIC.
  • λ (overall penalty) and γ (mixing) = γ=0.5 in d=2 simulations; λopt chosen by AIC
    Simulation-specific choices, not part of the theoretical statements.
  • Radius r in Theorem 5 = arbitrary positive
    Controls the probability level 1-CL/r^L and the neighborhood size in A5(r/nΔn).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Standard ergodic diffusion regularity: Lipschitz coefficients, non-degeneracy, smoothness, ergodicity, finite moments, identifiability
    Stated in Section 2 and used for existence, estimation, and polynomial large deviation results.
  • domain assumption Initial estimator satisfies mixed-rate consistency and asymptotic normality (P1, P2)
    The estimator inherits its rates and limiting distribution from \tildeθ_n; justified by quasi-likelihood theory cited from Yoshida.
  • domain assumption Information matrix scaling and block-diagonal limit (P3, P4)
    P4 forces the asymptotic covariance to be block-diagonal; used in Theorem 1(iii).
  • domain assumption Weight and ridge rate conditions (A1-A4)
    Conditions on adaptive weights and ridge terms that produce consistency, selection consistency, and normality.
  • domain assumption Regular contrast A5(r): bounded gradient and positive-definite Hessian in a neighborhood of the initial estimator
    Needed for the finite-sample QMLE bounds in Lemma 3 and Theorem 5; unverified in general.
  • domain assumption Spectral bounds on the scaled information matrix (A6)
    Used to turn \hat G_n bounds into constant τ1, τ2 bounds in Theorems 5 and 6.
  • domain assumption Lipschitz drift with square-integrable constant (A7)
    Needed for the prediction error bound in Theorem 6.
  • domain assumption Exact block-diagonal \hat G_n for non-asymptotic results
    Theorems 4-6 assume \hat G_n=diag(\hat G^{αα},\hat G^{ββ}); off-diagonal blocks only vanish asymptotically, so finite-sample validity is restricted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Elastic-Net estimation for sparse diffusion processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BXX7OQHC

@misc{pith2026241216659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Elastic-Net estimation for sparse diffusion processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BXX7OQHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16659}
}
abstract

Penalized estimation methods for diffusion processes and dependent data have recently gained significant attention due to their effectiveness in handling high-dimensional stochastic systems. In this work, we introduce an adaptive Elastic-Net estimator for ergodic diffusion processes observed under high-frequency sampling schemes. Our method combines the least squares approximation of the quasi-likelihood with adaptive $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ regularization. This approach allows to enhance prediction accuracy and interpretability while effectively recovering the sparse underlying structure of the model. In the spirit of analyzing high-dimensional scenarios, we provide finite-sample guarantees for the (block-diagonal) estimator's performance by deriving high-probability non-asymptotic bounds for the $\ell_2$ estimation error. These results complement the established oracle properties in the high-frequency asymptotic regime with mixed convergence rates, ensuring consistent selection of the relevant interactions and achieving optimal rates of convergence. Furthermore, we utilize our results to analyze one-step-ahead predictions, offering non-asymptotic control over the $\ell_1$ prediction error. The performance of our method is evaluated through simulations and real data applications, demonstrating its effectiveness, particularly in scenarios with strongly correlated variables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16659 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Elastic-Net coefficient paths as the tuning parameter λ for different values of the mixing parameter γ. 6.2. Stochastic regression model. In this subsection we test our findings by applying our method to synthetic data. We evaluate the model selection and predictive capabilities of our Adaptive Elastic-Net method, and we compare it with LASSO and non-regularized (quasi￾likelihood estimator). Adaptive estimators are … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A sample path of the process (Y, X1, X2) that satisfies a SDE with linear drift (27) and diffusion matrix (28). We consider the metrics accuracy and selection. Accuracy measures proportion of parameters correctly included/excluded, selection measures the probability of including all of the true pre￾dictors in the regression equation. In the d = 2 case both the true coefficients α1 and α2 of X1 and X2 respectively ar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of parameters α1 and α2, with increasing sample size. For each parameter-method combination, the plot shows in red the proportion of parameters estimated as zero by the method under consideration, while in blue the density of parameters estimated as non-zero. The true parameter values are shown with black dashed lines. The integration of the continuous and discrete components in each plot is normalized … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy and selection for different values of the mixing parameter and correlation parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of empirical mean absolute prediction errors for Elastic￾Net, LASSO and QMLE estimators with respect of variation in the prediction horizon h, sample size n and the number of parameters. The graphs in the same row share the same scale on the y-axis. In Figur…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Response variable (subjective well being), and one predictor (coun￾try’s economic index) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized coefficients αY,j , 90 days time window [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variables representation in the frequency-importance space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ergodic Network Stochastic Differential Equations

    stat.ME 2024-12 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A quasi-likelihood and adaptive Lasso framework is proposed for estimating ergodic network SDE models with nonlinear drift, stochastic volatility, and directed graphs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    De Gregorio and S

    A. De Gregorio and S. M. Iacus. Adaptive lasso-type estimation for multivariate diffusion processes. Econo- metric Theory, 28(4):838–860, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [8]

    De Gregorio and F

    A. De Gregorio and F. Iafrate. Regularized bridge-type estimation with multiple penalties. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics , 73(5):921–951, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [1]

    Amorino, F

    C. Amorino, F. Pina, and M. Podolskij. Sampling effects on lasso estimation of drift functions in high- dimensional diffusion processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08638 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [2]

    Beck and M

    A. Beck and M. Teboulle. A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM journal on imaging sciences , 2(1):183–202, 2009

    2009

  5. [3]

    Bolte, S

    J. Bolte, S. Sabach, and M. Teboulle. Proximal alternating linearized minimization for nonconvex and non- smooth problems. Mathematical Programming, 146(1):459–494, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [4]

    Carpi, A

    T. Carpi, A. Hino, S. M. Iacus, and G. Porro. The impact of covid-19 on subjective well-being: Evidence from twitter data. Journal of Data Science , 21(4):761–780, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    On Lasso estimator for the drift function in diffusion models

    G. Ciolek, D. Marushkevych, and M. Podolskij. On lasso estimator for the drift function in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05974 , 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [6]

    Cio lek, D

    G. Cio lek, D. Marushkevych, and M. Podolskij. On Dantzig and Lasso estimators of the drift in a high dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model. Electronic Journal of Statistics , 14(2):4395 – 4420, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Dexheimer and C

    N. Dexheimer and C. Strauch. On Lasso and Slope drift estimators for L´ evy-driven Ornstein–Uhlenbeck processes. Bernoulli, 30(1):88 – 116, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Fan and R

    J. Fan and R. Li. Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. Journal of the American statistical Association , 96(456):1348–1360, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    Fan and R

    J. Fan and R. Li. Statistical challenges with high dimensionality: Feature selection in knowledge discovery. arXiv preprint math/0602133 , 2006

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fan and H

    J. Fan and H. Peng. Nonconcave penalized likelihood with a diverging number of parameters. The Annals of Statistics, 32(3):928 – 961, 2004. 28 ALESSANDRO DE GREGORIO, DARIO FRISARDI, FRANCESCO IAFRATE, AND STEF ANO IACUS

    2004

  5. [13]

    Florens-Zmirou

    D. Florens-Zmirou. Approximate discrete-time schemes for statistics of diffusion processes. Statistics: A Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics , 20(4):547–557, 1989

    1989

  6. [14]

    L. E. Frank and J. H. Friedman. A statistical view of some chemometrics regression tools. Technometrics, 35(2):109–135, 1993

    1993

  7. [15]

    Fujimori

    K. Fujimori. The dantzig selector for a linear model of diffusion processes. Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes, 22:475–498, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Ga ¨ ıffas and G

    S. Ga ¨ ıffas and G. Matulewicz. Sparse inference of the drift of a high-dimensional ornstein–uhlenbeck process. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 169:1–20, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    A. D. Gregorio and S. M. Iacus. On penalized estimation for dynamical systems with small noise. Electronic Journal of Statistics , 12(1):1614 – 1630, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    A. D. Gregorio and F. Iafrate. Pathwise optimization for bridge-type estimators and its applications, https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04047. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and M. Wainwright. Statistical learning with sparsity. Monographs on statistics and applied probability, 143(143):8, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    F. Iafrate. SDELearn: a Python package for SDE Modeling. https://github.com/fiafrate/sdelearn, 2024. Version 0.1.2

    2024

  13. [21]

    Iafrate and D

    F. Iafrate and D. Frisardi. Elastic net estimation for ergodic diffusion processes. https://github.com/ fiafrate/enet-sde, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Kamatani and M

    K. Kamatani and M. Uchida. Hybrid multi-step estimators for stochastic differential equations based on sampled data. Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes, 18(2):177–204, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    M. Kessler. Estimation of an ergodic diffusion from discrete observations. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , 24(2):211–229, 1997

    1997

  16. [24]

    Kinoshita and N

    Y. Kinoshita and N. Yoshida. Penalized quasi likelihood estimation for variable selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.12871, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P. E. Kloeden and E. Platen. Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations . Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 1992

    1992

  18. [26]

    Masuda and Y

    H. Masuda and Y. Shimizu. Moment convergence in regularized estimation under multiple and mixed-rates asymptotics. Mathematical Methods of Statistics , 26:81–110, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Pardoux and Y

    ´E. Pardoux and Y. Veretennikov. On the poisson equation and diffusion approximation. i. The Annals of Probability, 29(3):1061–1085, 2001

    2001

  20. [28]

    Sørensen

    M. Sørensen. Efficient estimation for ergodic diffusion processes sampled at high frequency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04689, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Suzuki and N

    T. Suzuki and N. Yoshida. Penalized least squares approximation methods and their applications to stochastic processes. Japanese Journal of Statistics and Data Science , 3(2):513–541, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Tibshirani

    R. Tibshirani. Regression selection and shrinkage via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 58(1):267–288, 1996

    1996

  23. [31]

    Uchida and N

    M. Uchida and N. Yoshida. Adaptive estimation of an ergodic diffusion process based on sampled data. Stochastic Processes and their Applications , 122(8):2885–2924, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    Wang and C

    H. Wang and C. Leng. Unified lasso estimation by least squares approximation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(479):1039–1048, 2007

    2007

  25. [33]

    N. Yoshida. Polynomial type large deviation inequalities and quasi-likelihood analysis for stochastic differen- tial equations. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics , 63(3):431–479, 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    N. Yoshida. Quasi-likelihood analysis for nonlinear stochastic processes. Econometrics and Statistics , 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    H. Zou. The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. Journal of the American statistical association , 101(476):1418–1429, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Zou and T

    H. Zou and T. Hastie. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 67(2):301–320, 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    Sapienza

    H. Zou and H. H. Zhang. On the adaptive elastic-net with a diverging number of parameters. Annals of statistics, 37(4):1733, 2009. ADAPTIVE ELASTIC-NET ESTIMATION FOR SPARSE DIFFUSION PROCESSES 29 Department of Statistical Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, P.le Aldo Mor...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.